Wednesday, July 30, 2014

I have re-read my paper: “Why technology first?’
automatically remembering one of the favorite books of my childhood ‘Twenty
years after.” by Alexandre Dumas.

The paper is attached to this essay, perhaps it is too
long, has a rather low ideas/words density, has much too many quotations and
embarrassingly naïve concepts- however, I dare to hope, it can be used to
illustrate the progress made in the
field and

proves some predictions made by me in illo tempore.

I have used much stuff from my course of “Management of
Technology”- presented at the local university
of Eco Management.

I wonder if somebody will have the angelic patience to
read it,

but it can happen. I will use the comments to up-to-date
this text, Blogger allows me to do that.

Let’s remember the old battles (lost) prior to going in
new battles we must win- if we will not accept to perish.

However this is just nostalgia, the victory and the
solution is in new ideas not in old books and papers, not in the past.

Peter

FROM THE GOOD/BAD OLD TIMES

(with special thanks to Christy Frazier)

Why
Technology First

by
Dr. Peter Glück

The
Problem

“We
are very good at making and talking about the bricks of the temple of
science,but most of us are shy about the mortar or

about
the speculative blueprint of the whole design” —
Gerald Holton

“The
great menace to progress is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge” —(Author
unknown, quoted after Daniel Boorstin)

I
will present here my vision about Cold Fusion, an offer for a strategy in this
field, and a theory. These are as subjective as possible because I have learned
well that an “objective analysis”

is
both a contradiction in terms and a symptom of fear of responsibilityor of
inadequate knowledge. I don’t aim to compete with
the many other theories which try to explain the puzzles of Cold Fusion;
obviously there is a state of crisis which requires

a
radical change of rules in the contest, that is what Edward de Bono has called surpetition,
creatively replacing the usual “competition” [1]. The trick is not how to
defeat the “rival” theories

but
how to assimilate selectively their valuable elements, the fragments of truth
they hold. In short range, this has some drawbacks such as hostility and a
success similar to that of

Cassandra’s
predictions, as it results from the citation rate of my papers which are
politely and systematically ignored [2-5].

“When
truth is discovered by someone else, it loses something of its attractiveness” A.Solzhenitsyn

In
the longer range, after the recognition of the theory, after its metamorphosis from
an “ugly duckling” into a swan, hopefully laying golden eggs, it has to be
adequately extended and

developed,
in order to cure its inborn mathematical debility. But now we need a theory
which can be used as a solid working hypothesis and we have to follow one of
the advises of the

Father
of Scientific Management:

“Quantification
without adequate logic is worse than no quantification at all.”—Peter
F. Drucker

In
my opinion, we have to create first a very general and not precisely defined
frame useful for the commercial development of new energy sources; real,
profound understanding and impressive formulas will come later.

“In
science the primary duty of the ideas is to be useful and interesting more than
to be true” —Wilfred Totter

If
we are pragmatic enough, we have to accept this, and if are not, it doesn’t matter:
the situation cannot be changed. However I am not fanatical about my opinion or
my theory:

“When
people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or other
kinds of dogmas or goals, it’s always because

these
dogmas or goals are in doubt”—Robert Pirsig

And
a general acceptance is neither possible nor desirable:

“It
is time to understand that consensus in the scientific community is not a good
sign,but rather a symptom of crisis. The polarization of views is normal” —V.
Koliadin

To
generate a viable mental tool, I have used both scientific data and basic
principles of action and management:this is justified by the extreme difficulty
and novelty of the problem [6].

“Problems
worthy of attack, Show their worth by hitting back.” —Piet
Hein

The
Perils of Neophobia (and Its Justification)

A very great part of the problems faced by
Cold Fusion are due to the normal, self-protecting, neophobic reaction of the
scientific community.

“All
great truths begin as blasphemies”—G.B. Shaw

“The
mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and
resistsit with similar energy. If we watch ourselves

with
honesty, we shall often find that we begin to argue against a new idea even
before it has been completely stated”—Wilfred Totter

“One
of the marvels of creation is the infinite capacity of the human brain to
withstand the introduction of knowledge” —

Theodore
Roosevelt

“When
you don’t understand something,you are against it”

—Grigore
Moisil, Romanian mathematician

My
dear Cold Fusion fellows, you have to understand that:

“What
men really want is not knowledge but certainty”—Bertrand
Russell

Cold
Fusion was discovered by chemists, but the physicists are convinced that real
or not, CF is their field and has to be treated their way. This generates some
trouble as it can be concluded from an editorial entitled “Are there limits of
scientific knowledge?” [7]

“..there
is a difference in the way that physicists and chemists regard science, and I
sincerely hope my physicist colleagues

are
not unduly offended. Many physicists hope they can understand EVERYTHING and
they manage to pronounce

this
hope with great regularity to the public. There’s a certain arrogance there,
but also an ambition one must respect. Chemists seem to have no such problem.
The complexity of molecular

to
a complexity equivalent to that of a decent sized universe. Yes, physicists, a
universe. Chemists appreciate the enormity of molecular complexity very well
and they regularly say, “We don’t

long
time before we do.” Contemplating molecular complexity is a good mental exercise
in humility. Chemists appear to be quite content with this well adjusted,honest
attitude even though as scientists we are sometimes less well regarded for our
admitted lack of complete understanding of our subject.” —Royce
W. Murray

Whether
cold fusion belongs to the physicists, to the chemists, to both, or demands new
specialists is an open question. Any kind of combined solution is possible.
Being a chemical engineer, my expertise in complexity includes elements of
know-how and

direct
experience in hypersensitivity, chaotic behavior of real systems, and unpredictability.
I know that complexity, chaos, change, and paradox cannot be solved, but have
to be managed.

It
is time to recognize the immense difficulty of the field, as

well
as the impossibility of finding or guessing solutions by starting from a particular
aspect or from wishful, beautiful, but unfounded analogies (‘miniature hot
fusion,’ ‘room temperature fusion,’ ‘piezonuclear processes,’ etc.) It is time
to accept with joy that complexity is our mode of existence: “The
World is constructed designedly in order to fulfill the interest of the
scientist, being infinitely complex and perfectible,providing an endless and
eternal field of thinking and action for him” —Y.H.
Prum

It
is time to understand that such a problem will get a solution only if we use
adequate heuristic principles.[6,8].

The
Way of Strategy

A
strategy is essential because: “If you don’t
know where you are going, any road will take you there”—Theodore
Levitt

My
offer is a logical strategy based on the following five modes of confronting the
problems

Global
Approach

Consider
the entirety of the available data, information, knowledge, all the systems,
results, isotopes of hydrogen Only a cooperative combination between reduction
and holism, analysis and synthesis, depth- and breadthoriented methods will
help us to achieve an integrative vision of the intricate problem: what is
actually Cold Fusion?

Open
Approach

Supply
and use a continuous influx of information from the neighboring fields (no good
fences!) and even from more remote areas of the human thinking and action. We
are not permitted

to
forget that Koestler has proved that creativity works with

‘bisociations,’
i.e. associations between seemingly unrelated or even

mutually
alien concepts.[9]. And Goedel’s theorem shows that it is

never
possible to solve all the problems of a system by using only inner
data, information, and knowledge.

Even
a hasty investigation demonstrates that the neighboring fields of solid state
science are lacking theoretical underpinning[10], and therefore an idea such as
“cold fusion has no theory,therefore doesn’t exist” or “only theory can support
the advancement

of
CF” are completely false regardless of who issues them: a skeptic or an adept.
The best method to stop progress in any science was stated by a skeptic, whose
fervor, negative enthusiasm, and continuous combat against cold fusion has
helped him to be quoted in a rather esoteric society of participants:

“Let’s
get the theory sorted out before we make claims about practicality”—Alan
M. Dunsmuir on the Internet, Fusion Digest No.3103, January 1995

Focused
Approach

Concentrate
on the essential aspects, on the core of the problem. This core is excess
heat, because cold fusion is oppressed and
needs a quick final victory in order to flourish; there are many more chances
that the savior of the field will be the Invincible Cold

Fusion
Demo— demonstrating that the energy source of the future has been found— rather
than the Absolutely Convincing CF theory.

Nuclear
ashes obtained in small quantities in some of the CF systems have only
scientific significance and it is more and more obvious that these are secondary
products; ‘Focused’ and

‘Global’
are thus complementary.

Positive
Approach

Accept
both the positive and the negative results, that is, be positive

toward
both, and to make use of both. I have used the plethora of negative results to
deduce the catalytic nature of cold fusion, i.e. I have used negative data to
obtain positive, and possibly essential information. The extreme case of this
approach is my claim to

have
founded Scipiology (the science of converting disasters in triumphs) [11].
Managers know well the importance

of
positive thinking:

“Here
is one secret of success. Avoid being against some-thing.Instead be for
something.Examples. Instead of being against

illiteracy,
be for literacy and
you will help to improve literacy. Instead of being against your company’s
policy, be for an

improved
policy. What happens: Whateveryou are against, works against you. You begin fighting
it and become a part of the

problem.
But when you state what are you for, you begin focusing on the potential for the
positive change” —Wayne W.Dyer[12].

Here
I have to confess that it is quite difficult to apply this doctrine in one’s attitude
toward the militant, active skeptics. Perhaps one of my cold fusion friends is
right when he states that ‘a 99% skeptic is better than a 200% believer’ but
this is also open to interpretation. I have many good friends among the
skeptics, however they have taught me that the next statement, which
demonstrates the

existence
and power of the negative thinking,
is not a metaphor:

“If
you don’t think at all, you think more than the average of the people.”—Jules
Renard

During
writing this piece I came across an essay of Daniel Boorstin

dedicated
to the virtues of the so called ”negative discovery,” i.e. paradigm changes
which prove that “some long-admired fixture of the imagination does not
exist”[13]. It is clear that cold fusion is also a “negative discovery” in the
most positive interpretation of this wording. This shows once again its
progressive character:

“Perhaps
the modern realm of discovery isno longer a realm of answers but only
ofquestions, which we are beginning to feel

at
home in and enjoy. Perhaps our modern discoverer is not a discoverer at all but
rather a quester in an Age of Negative

Discovery,
where achievements are measured not in the finality of the answers,but in the
fertility of the questions.”—Daniel
Boorstin

Our
case illustrates the conceptual richness of the positive-negative

dichotomy.

Realistic
Approach

Admit
the limits of the present understanding and realize the present stage of
development. The following advice is many thousand years old but very rarely
understood:

“Gain
power by accepting reality.” —Chinese
proverb

It
isn’t easy to accept that:

“Truth
is never pure and rarely simple”—Oscar Wilde

“Knowledge
is but a struggle for knowledge.And we are always equally far and equally near
it.” —Ramon Sender

“Science,
at the bottom, is really antiintellectual.It always distrusts pure reasonand
demands the production of the

objective
fact” —H.L.Mencken

“Truth
is perfectible at the most, only lies

can
be perfect.”—Y. H. Prum

Or
the worst of all:

“
Theories are ways of thinking which determine the choice of the experiment —Mary
Migley

Theory
and know-how have to be in equilibrium because

“When
the cobbler became a shoe specialist,comfortable shoes could no longer be found”
—Erwin Chargaff

We
can learn from the great managers; a single quote is convincing:

“Past
wisdom must not be a constraint but something to be challenged. Yesterday’s
success formula is often today’s obsolete dogma. My challenge is to have [the
organization] continually questioning the past so we can renew ourselves every
day.”

O.K.,
Ben, you are right, no more quotations, and I’ll tell you because I am looking
back with pleasure. However, I am quite busy looking forward.

Cold
Fusion Systems

After
more than 25 years practice in the systematization of patents and elements of
know-how for chemical technologies,taxonomy is my baby. I have learned how to
classify —chronologically, in order to comprehend the evolution —logically,
i.e. according to the kind of the solution, trying to get a global vision of
the possibilities —

technologically,
that is by the companies owing the patents, correlating the data aiming to a
realistic view of the technologies worked out by the leading companies. For my
specialty (suspension polyvinyl chloride) I had processed more than 12,500
patents

and,
obviously, had no computer.Then I joined the Cold Fusion movement (actually it
happened a few years before the F & P press conference; hot fusion seemed
to contradict my theory of unstoppable technological progress and I knew
that an alternative solution must exist) and when very soon the
great stumbling block of irreproducibility came in sight, I immediately identified
the stigma of catalytic processes. To be catalytic is a blessing

in
the case of a well-tempered process, but is a curse when it’s beyond
control.All CF systems discovered are cases of catalysis [2-4] and using this criterion
they can be classified in the following logical way, using as criteria the
location of the active sites and the

method
used for raising them:

1.
WET SYSTEMS (gas/liquid/solid interfaces)

1.1. Electrochemical:

1.1.1. Pd/D2O

1.1.2. Ni/H2O

1.1.3. Pd/ molten
salts

1.2.
Ultrasonic:

1.2.1.
Pd/ D2O

1.2.2.
Metal/H2O

2.
DRY SYSTEMS (gas/solid interfaces)

2.1.
gas loading/unloading

2.2.
gas discharge

2.3.
gas sparking

2.4.
gas/solid, stimulated

2.5.
gas/ proton conductors

2.6.
ionic implantation

Only
systems in which excess heat was obtained are included here. Who knows, there
may be others! Details regarding these systems can be found in the reviews of
Storms[14,15] and hundreds of other papers and patents.

Occam’s
Razor

The
systems are very diversified, and it seems that what they have in common is the
inhibition of the positive
effects and the immediateness of
the negative effects; excess heat generation

can
be triggered with great difficulty but can be easily interrupted. It

is
obvious that the cold fusion effect is based on some entities hich are very difficult
to breed, but easy to destroy. In other words, they are hypersensitive and
determine a chaotic behavior of the systems if these are in a suboptimal condition.
However there are striking differences regarding the practical means of
managing the different

CF
systems. Storms calls the entities’ a Special Condition of Matter

(SCM)
and states that this condition can appear in different chemical environments. He
states: “ The challenge for a theoretician is to find what these SCM’s have in
common.” In my opinion

all
the CF systems described are based on methods of activation: electrochemical, ultrasonic,
and others specific for gas/solid interfaces, that is, on creation of catalytic
active sites.

As
seen from the practice, both in the chemical industry and in case of cold fusion,
this isn’t an easy job. Working by cavitation, the process is quite powerful
and unperturbed, in contrast with the “classical”Fleischmann-Pons cell where
the active centers are

created
long after all diffusional processes have attained a state of

equilibrium.
This suggests another criterion, yet not well defined, for ordering the CF
systems from the most tough and efficient to the most sluggish and delicate.
Catalysis is inherently economical given the processes are very localized
and only an extremely small fraction of the matter has to be in
the productive “Special Condition.’ And this condition isn’t bound to a special
composition

but
it is actually a quantum state determined by the topology and the dynamics of
the atoms placed in the active sites. For this reason, I am using the name
“surfdyn concept” for my working hypothesis. Quantum confinement, quantum
corrals, and quantum cavities are the probable scene for the unexpected
processes. (I don’t like the wording “anomalous,” the anomalous of today is the
trivial of

tomorrow.)

Isotopic
Democracy

The
participants in the Cold Fusion drama are as surprising as the scene. At the
very beginning of the story it seemed that only deuterium could play a role,
and D+D fusion was the name of the game. Now we know that in at least 5 systems
(1.1.2., 1.2.2., 2.1.,

2.3.,
and 2.4.), light water (or hydrogen) has an excess heat producing potential
similar to that of deuterium.

A
recent “surprise” the very first bastion of deuterium has fallen: using palladium-coated
beads with very high surface area (that is with enhanced catalytic activity),
Patterson [16], was able to obtain excess heat with a H2O-based electrolyte.

Reifenschweiler
[17] has published data about the temperature dependence of the radioactivity
of tritium embedded in titanium soot, having nanometric particles. The myth of inaccessibility
of the nucleus by low energy processes has fallen. Where does this miracle

happen?
In a catalytic environment, of course! With another isotope of hydrogen. As far
we know, there are no essential differences

between
deuterium and protium regarding the level of excess heat. A kind of Isotopic
Democracy is working, possibly in all the systems. However, this proves that
Cold Fusion has a component which is not nuclear.Who cares as long as it is a
reliable source of energy?

The
Cold Fusion Scenario

A
simple scenario, hiding a treasure of complexity can thus be imagined:Cold
Fusion” is actually a combination between: a Catalytic Quantum Effect,
providing the capture of the zero-point energy, and more Catalytic Nuclear
Effects, leading to nuclear

ashes.

Obviously
the nuclear particles are able to induce secondary reactions. The quantum
non-nuclear and the nuclear effects have different ratios in the systems
described and this is a

kind
of mark of each system. The nuclear contribution to the excess heat is
significant only in the deuterium based systems when helium-4 is formed; the
maximum “nuclearity” appears in the palladium-heavy water ultrasonic system.
According to my guess, even the Fleischmann and Pons cell is only 20-25%
nuclear. (Yes,

my
reputation is at stake!) Eventually let’s imagine a very simple play, based on
the concept of pairing postulated by Reifenschweiler. Two atoms of hydrogen
isotopes, confined in a quantum well, can form a pair (lots of theories
describe aspects and forms of this idea). Beyond a degree of pairing they are
able to tap ZPE, and excess

heat
is emitted. At higher degrees of pairing and if deuterium is present, the
nuclei are fused and a new source of heat is at work. An analogy can be found:
the nuclear events are like marriages,

while
the quantum events are like pairings, both intra- and extramarital.

This
gives an idea of the relative frequency. Obviously, the real situation, (of
cold fusion) is much more complicated. I don’t know when my theory will be
accepted. In the worst case the final victory will be semantic: the catalysis
jargon will invade and

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Semantics
is not quite an exact science; words have different and somewhat fluid
meanings. A congress of philosophers
could not tell us what are the differences between a theory and a principle however
when we are moving in a familiar territory of knowledge where theories abound
and principles are not considered relevant & important- we can tell the ones
from the others quite easily- just by looking to them; remember the pragmatic
definition of pornography. “I know it when I see it”- principle.

In
the VUCA world of LENR, there can be intermediary states

or hybrids of theories and principles. Theories are knowledge-oriented,
more precise and detailed than principles, while principles are
action-oriented, implying change.

Theories are interesting and passive, principles
active and useful- as a somewhat general rule.

To
the faithful readers of this blog is obvious that I have a passion to discover
basic principles- see the “Twin Peaks’
and the “Sue-Ellen principle” (combined with the Kaltwasser doctrine) the
Principle of the Chief Engineer and, especially the realistic and very
practical technical principles of Defkalion Green Energies. My personal techno-
moral principles-slogans as:

“I
think, I exist; I decide, I live; I solve problems, I live with a purpose” and

are
– at least for me, proofs that principles are important. In the present case we
need to find those principles that could contribute to the solutions of the
wickedly wicked problems of LENR.

But
let’s discuss about LENR theories at first:

May
I tell here what everybody knows- theories have not achieved much, have not
explained even basic facts, are not guiding experiment, do not have problem
solving power.

Despite
these non-successes, many theories are beautiful impressive logical constructs
and their authors plus some fans like them, promote them and oppose them to the
competition.

It
happens that just now, a new theory, created by the most knowledgeable and
reputed author of the LENR field is fighting

for
general acceptance and supremacy, having an excellent press and a lot of
supporters. It is discussed on the forums, in many threads and it is the core
idea of a book written just for the sake and for extended/deep presentation- of
the theory- w

and
I advise you to do it- the qualities of the book are more important than any
and all possible weaknesses of the new theory. The book is surely a treasure
both for old cold fusionists like me happy to remember the great events of the
past and to

young
LENR researchers trying to build a great future for a most interesting, however
very special domain of Science.

It
happens that I have followed the creation of Ed’s theory from its embryonic
stadium when it was just a sketch of a paper; and I disagreed with parts of it-
all the time...

However
both the book and the theory will be inspiring; the book after a pleasant
study, the theory after its evaluation and dissection (to which I contribute
here; at least I think so).

The
book has to be taken seriously because it will surely be taken very seriously (not
a tautology!) by the young people entering the field due to the reputation and
authority of its creator and the high quality of his writing.

My
history with the new theory: I have
learned long ago that Ed Storms is a leading personalityof Cold Fusion/LENR and therefore I have taken in
consideration the theory as soon as it was formulated. These writings are more
than 2 years old:

Ed Storms' answers to
5 questions. Questions No. 6 and 7

Ed has answered patiently
to all my questions- as you can see. However, I was not convinced by his
arguments, as we will see later. I was quite stubborn, Ed had the impression
that “we are looking at Nature in very different ways”- and I had to agree.

For those unable to
understand his theory, the answers cannot be supplied in few words, so he has
decided to write this book.

THE CONTEXT/BACKGROUND
OF MY ANALYSIS OF THE THEORY

Personal note: in
1970, when I became the Head of the research laboratory for PVC and chlorine
compounds at OLTC HIM Ramnicu Valcea I
delivered a short discourse about
strategy and future. Toward the end I
have tried to say something quotable:

“I know well differences in
opinion are attracting intelligent people and are repelling only those who are
not so!”

My coworkers liked it.
Then I have added:

“Take care, friends! You
can do many things with me, but for your own sake, beware contradicting me!!!”

Now, more than 40 years later I am
increasingly convinced that the first part was one of the greatest idiocies I
have ever said.

People are unbelievable conflictual and
take their opinions

very personal- “Ma theorie, c’est
moi!”

However I dare to claim that I am an
exception to this, being really tolerant to different and even opposing views
re any issues with no ethical implications.

The basic
contradiction is regarding the Solution of the LENR commercialization problem.

Theories belong to the
Scientific Method- and Ed’s theory

has obviously the same natural purpose: to
explain how LENR works and how this could be used for creating a commercial
energy source based on LENR. Absolutely correct, this is the essence of the scientific
method, a creative dogma, a must. You are not allowed to develop a technology
if you don't know well how it works, isn’t it? It is unscientific and it can be
very risky!

However what to do if you are not able to understand, you cannot
create a theory fulfilling this elementary request? Perhaps you cannot have a
theory because the phenomenon/process was discovered too early and science is
not prepared to explain it. And surely,
the phenomena are so complex, so multilayered and poly-sequential that they
need more theories not one single one? Add to this that the experimental
situation is simply dreadful- only, say, one experiment from 5-6, gives a
measurable result. The phenomenon clearly exists but cannot be controlled.
I don’t know why nobody believes me and Ed Storms rejects my air poisoning
hypothesis)

What TO DO THEN? You have to abandon the issue and continue
to strive heroically for the perfect theory and deep complete understanding? I
have to take this personally; I will be 77 years old in October, how many years
I can wait for a good theory to save LENR and to make it flourish? I know that
the distance from a perfect theory to a working device is great, technology is
much more than applied science.

Yes, I take it personally and I say it is an alternative to
the seemingly fatal obstacles and to a blocked way is to build a new way, the
way of technology.

What does this mean? If you have no theories to help, and
you are lost theoretically as in our case there still is a possibility- use
guiding principles and smart engineering, hard work to develop a well functioning
device and technology i.e. to solve the problem per se. The problem has to be
reframed, the task becomes to create, by radical changes a functional process.

The scientific method says “how the process works” but if it
works badly the alternative is “how can we make it to work

well?” by very smart engineering. The scientific method is
combined- actually hybridized with the technological method.

This is based on principles not on complete theories.

For those who believe in the universality of the Scientific
Method, this is a sacrilege however it is possible pragmatically

It was done by Andrea Rossi and by DGT (see their "make
hydrogen more reactive and metal more receptive” principle) I have written much
about this on my blog. If the scientific method does not work, use the hybrid
technological scientific method - engineering is the key. I have promoted this
idea starting from the very first issue of Infinite Energy.

How this principles-based hybrid scientific-technological
works in practice can be seen here:

We have to determine more guiding principles for solving the
LENR problem. Ed’s technology is stating the following:

-
PdD and NiH LENR are similar and the experience from the
first can be used for the second- I think this is not true;

-
The active sites for the reaction are cracks of critical
dimensions say 1 to 10 nm width. More good cracks lead to more reactions, more
heat. but actually more cracks is destruction of the working material;

-
Only the cracks are important, many materials will work;

this seems to be implausible- only
transition metals work;

-
The existence of the hydroton has to be demonstrated

Ed’s theory is incompatible with the hybrid approach.

Active vs. passive approach.

Ed’s theory takes a passive approach to the problem.

He resumes the essence of his theory as:

We are faced with three facts. Many other facts
are known but let's discuss these three.

1. The LENR process is rarely produced.

2. The LENR process takes place somewhere in a
physical structure.

3. The LENR process does not emit neutrons or
energetic radiation consistent with the amount of detected power.

These facts have several consequences:

1. A difficult to create NAE is required

2. The process must be consistent with the Laws of
Thermodynamics

3. The process must release the mass energy in small
units of energy rather than all at once.

These
facts and consequences limit the nature of the mechanism that can cause LENR.

The
active, approach guided by technological principles would be:

1.
The best methods to create the maximum density of NAE have to be found, the
process has to be intensified, controlled and optimized.

2. The process has to use the laws of Nature,
including some newly discovered ones in order to obtain the best possible
results by a comprehensive multi-disciplinar R&D program.

3. Nuclear signals have to be reduced as much as
possible, they are useless in the case of a heat source.

Further
contradiction regarding LENR vs. LENR+

Ed’s theory does not show the difference between
classic LENR and enhanced excess heat as obtained by Rossi and DGT. It is about
going from tens of Watts to kWatts, can this be hundred times more good cracks
or is it something more fundamental and more smart?

My answer was, from the
start that it is the mechanism of genesis of active sites ( Ed calls them NAE,
but I disagree- see: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/05/active-sites-and-nae.html
) Classic LENR works mainly with
pre-formed active sites, limited in number/density while LENR+ is based on a
continuous generation of new active sites- it is a dynamic equilibrium between
the active sites that are destroyed by the high temperature and the new ones
that appear; the trick is to have many of these doing their task - a sequence of
processes and reactions. The constructive side of the high temperature must be
added to its destructive effect and this is the clue of the LENR+’s exceptionality
and progress. This is something more sophisticated than crack management.

The critical Debye
temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms at the surface of the
metal, changes and the generation of active sites can begin. In my opinion the
active sites are at the very surface of a specific metal or alloy.

I have predicted this
decisive role of surface dynamics long ago see please my Surfdyn paper:

I hope that the coming
LENR+ crucial events will reveal a lot, including the role of the dynamic
equilibrium of the active sites- with details that can help us to go from
principles to practice and, simultaneously to theories.

The denial part of
Ed’s papers and book is remarkable anyway. He assassinates a lot of theories
that are not valid and promotes his theory created in the following basic
assumptions:

The
LENR process does not
take place in a chemical lattice.. The LENR process takes place only in cracks
of a critically small gap size.. All isotopes of hydrogen can fuse by the
same basic process, with only the nuclear products being different.. The basic process removes energy over a
period of time as photon emission. Most of this emission does not leave the
apparatus.. The fusion process causes the transmutation
reactions.. The overall process is consistent with all
natural law and requires introduction of only one new process.. Cold fusion and hot fusion are not related
in any way.

The LENR process,
indeed does not take place in the lattice but on the lattice;

The LENR process does
not take place in the “void” part

of the cracks but on
some special dynamic nanostructures on the surfaces, including the surfaces of
cracks;

Deuterium and hydrogen
are participating in different nuclear reactions and interactions and different
things happen in the

PdD and NiH systems. No
simple, logically symmetric vision can be created

The remaining
statements are probably valid in great part but this has to be proved by
experiment.

What to do with the bad theories

Theories are actually a form of truth and I
believe that many are Pareto truths. Even if a theory is not usable for guiding
experiments, they may contain fragments of good ideas. smaller or greater
sometimes hidden due to a harmful principle (as Pd D is like NiH in Storms’ new
theory.)

Friday, July 18, 2014

In one of my Septoes, I have stated that we are living in
“memcracies” i.e. dominant memes are
ruling over us.

The definition of a “meme” – largo sensu is a cultural
element

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme)
propagating usually epidemically by imitation; however for the subject of this
essay- that belongs to Science, higher quality and intellect memes are mainly
concepts, ideas or theories.

For all the cases, the concept of meme, is paradoxically
not a meme per se, perhaps because important fields of real and imagined
knowledge as politics, religion but even established science strongly dislike
the idea of meme. Even memes that

are like pathological criminals and or obviously
combining

violence, greed and stupidity- re-read please “Stop
Koalemos!” are considered genuine truths and not lowly memes.

I have to confess that, based on my personal experience
and system of thinking, I have accepted the concept- it has both explanatory
and predictive power for me.

The duty of a thinker is to create memes, good ones from
the sort that solves problems and does not create or aggravate them. I have
failed almost completely to do this; my philosophical ideas including those
regarding Cold Fusion continue to be unpopular and in danger to go in complete oblivion
when I cannot more promote them. It is a possibility that they will be
discovered again around 2050, however it is more pragmatic to survive and
prosper than to resurrect and start again, without parental support.

Actually it is about a sensitive process of memefication-
ideas are selected by Reality- some become almost immortal memes, while other
perish irreversibly. The factors of success are overly complex and
contradictory- beautiful simple, low IQ, emotionally charged lies are favored
to unpleasant, not positive,

complex truths needing effort to be understood, however
miracles (in many senses!) can happen. Sometimes, by sudden collective or just
uni-personal satoris, a concept, symbol, image or idea gets value, importance
and life and starts to generate

newness and light. It is terrifying to see how the most evil
memes of the XX-th and the XII-th Century are prospering just now.

Discovering VUCA, a terrible meme

Recently, I had such a moment of illumination and a
concept from the management-leadership philosophy that I have ignored till
then- was revealed almost explosively.

has generously included EGO OUT in a list of “25 blogs
guaranteed to make you smarter.” I am studying systematically the other 24
blogs –these are really fine and able to make smarter a good part of their
readers. Recently, I have discovered a masterfully written paper:

It was a sui generic intellectual discovery; I realized that
VUCA is an acronym as inspiring as SWOT and as stimulating as ASAP – the first
examples that come to my mind. The previously ignored acronym was converted in,
upgraded to- a shining, splendid meme.

Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous is an excellent
acronym, describing huge chunks and zones and periods of our world. Obviously
not in the ideal or desired sense- you have to combat VUCA- it is an
opportunity for the negative to come first and to dominate us as I have
described it in my, now fallen, essay:

Actually, really- VUCA can be many
other bad things as: violent/vulnerable + undefined/unmanageable+ chaotic/crazy
+ arguable/acausal- more or less. The Quaspire blog paper also offers a VUCA Solution:
Vision- Understanding- Clarity- Agility a quasi ideal one, to the VUCA problem.

VUCA is nothing new, our first
ancestors had to confront it as soon as they were thrown out for a vegan sin,
from the Garden where perfect harmony has ruled. VUCA is strongly related to other
concepts: directly to “wicked problems”, to hidden parameters and dangers,
inherent negativity, Black Swans (Black Raptors is more realistic). In a VUCA
World the truths are mainly Pareto Truths or worse- irreversibly fragmented-
incompatible Lego pieces, maddening color changing Rubik cubes…the realm of the
Twin Peaks principle. The Evil si indestructible and in some places, it always
wins”

LENR is also a VUCA World- now.

Please
take in consideration this: "Words mean more than we
mean to express when we use them,"Lewis
Carroll”

Let’s investigate how much means the components of the malefic
acronym VUCA for our favorite acronym, LENR.

V. Volatility- in which senses is LENR- volatile? My instant
reaction to volatile is the Italian word volare- flying, also flying away; when
a bit of time is added- disappearing. My primary feeling toward “volatile” is
negative due to my professional experience, highly volatile substances are
explosive, dangerous too. One of my research tasks during my apprenticeship
(1962-3) was to remove even traces of volatiles from plasticizers by steam
distillation combined with vacuum and for some months I was focused on this
task starting with the Bible-like, unique Perry’s Chemical Engineers Handbook.

12-15 years later I was very dedicated to removing the
volatile but very sticky residual monomer, vinyl chloride from PVC- difficult
task but of vital importance- because the monomer is

cancerogenic for processors and users.

See please the web-dictionaries for the synonyms of volatile-
can you discover a single positive one? Even the good perfumes have a well
moderated volatility.

What is volatile in the LENR field? Good results and hopes,
first of all. From the very start, lots of ideas were considered to

solve the problems- to make cold fusion reproducible,
upscalable- to convert it in the Promised Energy Technology, however all were
volatile and have disappeared- illusion, deception and new illusions came. Only
the fundamental idea

that cold fusion exists, remained permanent, however can we
speak about progress when open questions multiply so much faster than good
answers? How else can we call the tens of theories that eventually did not help
to define, understand and manage the desired phenomenon- excess heat- than non-answers?

No unity could be found in variety, no stop to the
volatility, no explanation of the situation, no solutions to the problems as
unreliable, uncontrollable weak effects. No solid and permanent experimental
support could be obtained...

I could not read the book till now- have to wait till it is
in electronic form due to my vision problems- I hope the book explains how the
theory can solve the chronicized problems of

LENR. We will come back to this “theory de jour”, however
for a technologist like me the seems to be too pessimistic, putting too much
emphasis on the inherent difficulty and rarity of the LENR process. For its
author, the theory is a certainty and so we have arrived to the second letter
of VUCA; to a nasty word-

U. Uncertainty- it is difficult to survive and impossible to
be happy with no certainties, both personally and professionally. In LENR the
offer of certainties is modest and in most cases what is a certainty for some
of us, is falsity and trash for many of our peers. It is tragic we had not been
able to manufacture solid, non-volatile certainties accepted by most of our
community members.

This remains a personal certainty and many readers (if they
read the paper indeed and don’t abandon it due to the bad title)

become certain that my CF-specific IQ is very low and I am
simply unable to understand the basics of the field including its

history and essence and heroes...

An other personal LENR certainty (even in my worst
nightmares or episodes of depression, I have not the slightest doubt about its
validity) is that the working surfaces in LENR must be free of alien gases-
ergo the wet electrochemical PdD cell will never become reliable and
manageable- those who bet on it will remain prisoners in a VUCA world – for
lifetime. Here VUCA is more: Vulnerable- Unmanageable- Chaotic- Adrift (both
scientifically and technologically). This idea of poisoning of LENR systems
with air was ignored with hostility and generated the certainty that I have
pathological ideas re the LENR experiments- euphemistically speaking. Many
times I got promises of perfectly reproducible FP Cell type experiments that
will invalidate spectacularly the very idiotic idea of air-killing-CF. I still wait
for these wonderful results and if uncle Alz allows me, I will discard this
certainty, together with my humble apologies.

C- Complex- it seems the field is not able to generate the much
desired certainties- as LENR Technology- Yes! however these are coming from
outsiders as Rossi and Defkalion- surprise! You could guess that the situation
is not simple in the field, this new battlefield has added static and dynamic magnitudes
to the third VUCA adjective: complex- and is also confusing, chaotic,
challenging. It is full of internal conflicts.

It is an elementary principle of the Scientific Method to
develop understanding first and only when you know what happens you are allowed
to develop technologies. This is a seemingly healthy dogma. An ideal dogma. But
is it always possible to proceed scientifically, is it possible and good-
realistic, pragmatic materialistic? What when the science per se is quite
VUCA-like

as it is for LENR? Are we “allowed” to try to create a
technology by discovering some principles and the factors that determine safety
using excellent engineering combined with incomplete science? Many of my
dearest friends say clearly NO!, science must come first and overall, however
Andrea Rossi, the Defkalion team, I and other technologists admit that
“technology first” is also possible. I have published a paper with this title
in the first issue of Infinite Energy, so I am an old sinner. I have concluded
long ago that the scientific method has some limitations, however these cannot
be limitations of technological progress. This paper emphasizes the complexity
of the subject: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/lenr-and-scientific-method-subject-of.html

Perhaps the situation of LENR is unique because real LENR
differs essentially from the model(s) accepted initially that persisted almost
unchanged till today. A radical paradigm change will alleviate the VUCA status
of LENR

A Ambiguous-we have to consider carefully the fourth VUCA
feature of LENR too- it is called Ambiguity but it is worse than this going
much beyond the multiple and instable interpretations of facts. The field, for
the time given is sentenced to pre-logical thinking, see:

The experiments are based mainly on trial and error, the results
are aleatory, in great extent- cannot be predicted and reproduced at will; the
cause-effect relationships are quite mysterious, LENR seems to be acausal. The
experimental facts are very diverse and cannot be connected in a logically
consistent vision with predictive capacity..

Eventually, the researchers don’t know what to measure as
cause and don’t know how to measure the effect (excess heat) because it is
usually very small and evanescent. The word ametric adequate for our case is
not in the dictionary but is in the wet cells and leads to a tragic reversal of
the efforts and creativity, from intensification to measurement.

There are no general rules in such a VUCA world, it is difficult
to define/determine what is correct and what is error and it seems the tunnel
has no end- it has a 3-dimensional Mobius strip topology- no end, no lighting.

Can be LENR de-VUCA-ized?

Improving the status from inside, using the old paradigm or
theories like that of Ed Storms as guide is theoretically possible.

New approaches, ideas and methods from outside (rs) as Rossi
and DGT needs practical demonstrations- working technologies, in the very
spirit of the VUCA Solution to build vision and understanding, clearly and
fast.

I believe these will come and after that the field will
really radically Change.